The Afilias Sunrise Policy and Rules do NOT say this.
Section 11(b) of the Rules says: "If a prevailing Challenger seeks the transfer of the domain name subject to the dispute, as stipulated in Paragraph 4 (j) of the Policy, such Challenger shall be provided with an authorization code generated by the Registry which will allow the Challenger to register the Domain Name in its name in accordance with the sunrise registration conditions of the Registration Agreement, at a registrar of its choice, within 10 days of the date on which the notification of the authorization code is sent to the Challenger."
I don't see any mention of a trademark here.
The registration is subject to whatever terms are contained in the agreement between the succesful challenger and his Registrar when he registers the name.
And if there is no reference to Sunrise Policies and Challenge Rules in that registration agreement, then they don't apply.
And if Afilias' agreement with ICANN required a challenger to provide eviidence that the challenger held a trademark - which it did - and and if Afilias' implemented policy didn't contain this - which it didn't - then this is NOT a loophole, its Afilias' deliberate Policy.
Here's a few facts that might explain why:
Afilias stated that they confidently expected to receive 500,000+ Sunrise registrations. They actually received 1/10 of that.
They were a new company, deeply in debt to finance their startup costs.
They received 5x the normal annual registration fee for Sunrise registrations.
They received $50 for each Sunrise challenge made.
They refused to cancel fraudulent and mistaken Sunrise registrations even when they were brought to their attention during the Sunrise period (and before any damage was done to the rights of ordinary registrants to register such names in the later Landrush). They even told one person who, by mistake, submitted almost 100 registrations during the Sunrise period, to challenge himself (and pay $295 per domain = $30,000) if he wished them to be cancelled....!
Anyone see any pattern emerging?
Please don't talk about loopholes (as an illegitimate means of circumventing the intention of the policy maker) to describe a deliberate, money-making policy!
This was already explained to Dan Tobias - see http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldevaluationprocess;3DF7DF17000013CD